Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision on 164 Fifteenth Street permit after tenancy‑in‑common dispute
Summary
A permit dispute involving a tenancy‑in‑common at 164 Fifteenth Street was continued to June 13 after the board weighed whether private arbitration and a co‑owner’s objections should bar permit issuance. City attorneys said the city may issue a permit to a record owner even if co‑owners privately disagree.
The Board of Appeals continued a contentious permit appeal for a property at 164 Fifteenth Street after hearing competing claims that the building permit at issue either should proceed for urgent safety repairs or be deferred while private arbitration resolves co‑owner disputes.
Appellant Clara Luzarte said the permit affects her tenancy‑in‑common rights and that the parties are in private arbitration; she asked the board to defer action until that arbitration is complete. Permit holder Michael Jay said their TIC agreement preapproved the work and that delays block needed safety repairs identified by a home inspector. Michael Jay asked the board to reissue the permit so repairs could proceed.
A City Attorney representative told the board that the building code requires permits be issued to an owner and that the city does not as a matter of course investigate private TIC contracts: “A building permit under the building code must be issued to an owner,” the city attorney said, adding that private agreements between owners could be litigated separately.
Given the mix of potential irreparable harm (safety repairs) and private contractual disputes, several commissioners favored a short continuance to allow the parties and staff to clarify procedural and safety issues; the board continued the matter to June 13 to allow limited further review and avoid immediate construction that could moot arbitration.
What happens next: The board’s continuance leaves the permit suspended for now; staff and the parties were asked to refine the record and report back on whether the building work is a safety‑only intervention or a larger permit that will require further review.
